From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC v2 16/31] linux: define license In-Reply-To: <201204162338.49807.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> References: <1331153911-22277-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <4F8C8CE2.3000702@lucaceresoli.net> <201204162338.49807.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> Message-ID: <4F8EE01A.7010006@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Yann E. MORIN: >> Another example: busybox. >> >> This is a messy as well. The LICENSE file carries this heading: >>> --- A note on GPL versions >>> >>> BusyBox is distributed under version 2 of the General Public License (included >>> in its entirety, below). Version 2 is the only version of this license which >>> this version of BusyBox (or modified versions derived from this one) may be >>> distributed under. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE >>> Version 2, June 1991 >> That looks clear, but many source files seem to disagree: >> $ head coreutils/uname.c >>> * Licensed under GPLv2 or later, see file LICENSE in this source tree. > What this means is that the work as a whole is available under the GPLv2, > but that if you use individual files out-side of busybox, you can use that > file under the license that is specified (IANAL!). > > From the buildroot perspective, busybox is GPLv2. Is this your personal view or did you get such info from upstream? I would not code in Buildroot any interpretation (even if from a trustworthy expert) that does not come from upstream. Luca